A few definitions: to "collect" means to gather and store; to "analyze" means that a computer or human actually does something with the records; to "intercept" means that a computer or human actually listens to or records calls.
So it is possible that the NSA routinely collects telephone and/or email metadata and that the NSA does not routinely "intercept" citizen's email or cell-phone conversation (depending upon the meaning of "routinely" used), and that an answer of "No" to the latter is not a lie.
The NSA would insist that it does not actually "spy" on you until it gets a further order, if at all. In most all circumstances, the FBI, not the NSA, would actually listen to your conversations if a FISA order was acquired. So merely "collecting" the data is like receiving a box full of records but not opening it until and unless they had a good reason to do so.
That metaphor is not terribly comforting, but it does appear to be the government's justification for insisting that they don't actually, actively "spy" on you. It is true: If they only compile these transactional records and don't do anything with them, and they faithfully honor this distinction, then the scale of the actual surveillance is not necessarily harmful, although it feels heavy. That's a big if. It depends on whether you believe the NSA follows the rules.
I have suspected for some time that Congresspeople ask their questions with a public entendre that has a separate, specifically-defined term that allows the answerer to sound like they're answering clearly and forthrightly, but which requires a parse in order to say, "hey, they simply asked the question wrong."
In other words, they collude to keep the public in the dark.
Good catch, and it's important to understand when dealing with the law that every single word has a specific legal interpretation. This is where Clinton's famous "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" came from. Re-read those questions and realize every single word in each sentence has a few pages of legalize that defines it. 'NSA', 'intercept', 'Americans', etc. Each word.
Where can one look up the actual legal definition for any given word?
Legislation often includes a section dedicated to definitions, commonly the first or last clause in a subsection of the US code. The holdings of court cases are also a significant source of information (but you have to distinguish between the holding, which is highly technical and narrow, and the dicta which is the long and often wide-ranging explanations of what the holding means that makes up the bulk of a judicial opinion, but which do not themselves have the force of law).
Have you heard the claim that your name in all caps is different than your name as you would write it? What is your opinion on that claim?
Complete garbage. I don't want to spend time or energy digging up all the references for you, but you can safely assume that anyone advancing that argument is a crazy trying to get out of paying income taxes (similar arguments include claims that having a certain kind of flag in the courtroom nullifies the legal force of a judicial decision and that your social security card is actually a certificate of slavery). Almost all such arguments originate from a set of fringe Christian conspiracy theories informally known as Dominionism in which (among other things) the federal government is considered an invention of Satan designed to trick Christians out of their rightful place as rulers over the Promised Land. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism
Surprising or counter-intuititve legal arguments that lean heavily on 'natural law' often turn out to be grounded in religious belief as well.
IANAL but it's highly dependent on context, and in many cases it's a matter of simply being extremely precise. For example, if I say "I'm not reading your email" note that I didn't say, for instance, that I'm not _collecting_ your email. Also, I didn't say I won't read it later. I also never said nobody else is reading your email right now.
It is interesting to compare this to a different thread about fallacies. If you're seeking the truth it's good to interpret someone's statements charitably. However when somebody in government says something, it's better to interpret it as cynically as possible, because that's where the unconstrained power forms.
"Where can one look up the actual legal definition for any given word?"
Words don't have universal legal definitions. However, at the start of a law there is usually a list of terms and how they are defined for the purposes of that law. So if want to know whether or not you can be prosecuted for X, you need to look up how the relevant terms are defined in the laws for X.
In the case of emails and phone records, in many cases the NSA isn't intercepting that information. Rather, the ISPs/telcos are intercepting it and sending the data to the NSA.
And many times the terms are defined as a reference to another part of the law. I'm not sure if there is ever a chain of references ("...as defined in secA, secA says: see secB, etc..."), but I wouldn't be surprised.
I believe it is required for some sections to be in all-caps in regards to EULAs to make it more obvious it is there. Specifically, disclaimers, waivers of liability and warranties are almost always in capitol letters.
The interception was done by Verizon, and the authorization appears to be via the FBI. Once that's done, NSA can help out if the FBI wants help. In this picture, General Alexander's answers are correct.
That won't stop Congress from being livid, should the representatives choose to be.
In this case, and using these definitions, it appears no "interception" happens because there is not a computer or human listening to the actual phone calls. Verizon is sending the call "metadata".
per the definition given above: "to "intercept" means that a computer or human actually listens to or records calls."
if a computer records a call, it's intercepted, no?
Jacob Applebaum, of the Tor Project, showed this clip at his keynote at 29C3 last year and commented firstly that General Alexander was probably the most powerful man in the world, and on the basis of this same text, characterised the man as a fucking liar. Your interpretation explanation shows how the creature manages to get away with it.
It seems pretty clear that the NSA engages in bulk collection of databases which _might_ someday contain something interesting, and only considers it "interception" when they query their own DBs.
These creative redefinitions of seemingly benign terms are at the root of the problem.
"It seems pretty clear that the NSA engages in bulk collection of databases which _might_ someday contain something interesting, and only considers it "interception" when they query their own DBs."
Interesting. Along those lines then if you were to make a clone of someone's hard drive but you actually didn't boot or access any of the information on the hard drive I wonder what law that may or may not break? You seem to be guilty of cloning a hard drive which may not be the same as stealing anything in particular that is covered by the way a law is written.
He was asked about the interception of the email content, but most of the information we have suggests that the NSA is receiving information about email and phone metadata.
Also the questions focus on what the NSA is intercepting, not what they are being given /demanding under a NSL.
Also it's unclear what processing by computers may be done of such material. If you have a computer doing threat assessment of all emails, but the NSA employees only get the assessment results, not the text, they could arguably state what they are saying.
Wrong questions. Someone should clue congress into the right questions.
Or, perhaps, the individual asking the questions phrased them in a manner that would set the public at ease. The words seemed to have been deliberately chosen to cover the government's ass if/when the truth comes out.
see: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
I wish I were only snarking when I wonder whether there's a double-top-secret exemption to the laws about perjuring one's self before Congress, which is, itself, secret. It just wouldn't do to have the laws that allow people to lie to Congress about secret stuff be public knowledge, after all...
I doubt it. Instead, I would bet it is under the table, since, in most cases, the truth can't be determined, and, if the truth is determined, somebody will have to be on the receiving end of the witch hunt, regardless of whether there was some "secret perjury immunity".
In other words, if we find out this guy is lying through his teeth, he's toast no matter what the rules said he "could" say.
There will be no consequences because Congress is behind this program, it is legal, and whether or not this testimony was a "lie" depends upon very specific definitions of terms like "intercept".
Most of us might hate that the government has this power but that does not make it extra-legal.
"Allowed by law", "legal" and "constitutional" are all entirely separate terms.
Without trying to confuse the issue too much, Congress could pass a law that makes slavery legal again, which is to say, that it is allowed by law. The flip side to that though, is that the Constitution would prohibit such an action.
That is clearly of little comfort in the meantime, but it does mean that law enforcement officers are not necessarily bound to enforce the law, courts are not necessarily bound to uphold it, and it likely has a good chance of being overturned by the Supreme Court (if not before).
American Jurisprudence has this to say on the matter:
It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law to be
valid, one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void,
and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from
the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the
decision so branding it an unconstitutional law.
In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never
been passed...
Since an unconstitutional law is void the general principles follow;
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows
no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no
acts performed under it.
A void law cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the
land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no court is bound to
enforce it.
Interestingly, your own extended quote from American Jurisprudence contradicts your thesis, and clearly lays out why "legal" and "constitutional" are not separate terms, as a purported law that contravenes the Constitution, "though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law" and "is as inoperative as if it had never been passed". Therefore, while Congress could pass something that pretended to be a law which violated the Constitution, by doing so it would make "in reality no law", and whatever was purported to be made legal by that law would not be legal.
To be legal, under US law, an act must necessarily be Constitutional as well; an unconstitutional act is, ipso facto, illegal.
Too true. I was trying to differentiate the difference between Congress' "legalization" of something, and its actual legality and, in the process, failed miserably.
Yes, at best, we could hope for a resignation and replacement. Forget about any real "punishment". It just won't happen. The whole government was behind this, including the White House and Congress.
Still, a resignation might give us some hope that at the very least the recognize how outraged this makes use, and they'll try to do better in the future. If they don't do that, then that's just defiance against the American people and against the Constitution.
I'm not sure I understand how this relates to the Guardian article. My understanding of that is that there's an NSL ordering Verizon to give electronic records of the calls to the NSA. The NSA isn't collecting, intercepting or monitoring anything. They're being handed the data by VZ. What's the relevance?
So, if I understand correctly, the "challenge" for the NSA is to route everything through routers in a foreign country. There the NSA is allowed to do whatever it wants.
No.
Does the NSA intercept Americans’ cell phone conversations?
No.
It's worth noting that "intercept" has a very specific meaning here, which the Congressman asking the question nor the reporter may not have realized.
From http://theweek.com/article/index/245228/the-fbi-collects-all...
A few definitions: to "collect" means to gather and store; to "analyze" means that a computer or human actually does something with the records; to "intercept" means that a computer or human actually listens to or records calls.
So it is possible that the NSA routinely collects telephone and/or email metadata and that the NSA does not routinely "intercept" citizen's email or cell-phone conversation (depending upon the meaning of "routinely" used), and that an answer of "No" to the latter is not a lie.
This article by the same author has more information on the program's specifics (http://theweek.com/article/index/245285/how-the-nsa-uses-you...), as his sources have told him:
The NSA would insist that it does not actually "spy" on you until it gets a further order, if at all. In most all circumstances, the FBI, not the NSA, would actually listen to your conversations if a FISA order was acquired. So merely "collecting" the data is like receiving a box full of records but not opening it until and unless they had a good reason to do so.
That metaphor is not terribly comforting, but it does appear to be the government's justification for insisting that they don't actually, actively "spy" on you. It is true: If they only compile these transactional records and don't do anything with them, and they faithfully honor this distinction, then the scale of the actual surveillance is not necessarily harmful, although it feels heavy. That's a big if. It depends on whether you believe the NSA follows the rules.